3 ms·

You can't build yourself out of the housing crisis when the problem is one of distribution, not one of supply. This is wrong. There is no distribution problem

by harryh 7y ago

You can't build yourself out of the housing crisis when the problem is one of distribution, not one of supply. This is wrong. There is no distribution problem with housing. It's not that people can't find a house to live in, or a house has to be shipped across the country and the rail line is broken. The problem is that people can't afford housing. And they can't afford it because demand has increased dramatically while supply has been artificially constrained by government. The solution is to remove the government constraints on supply which will lower prices. Now obviously the trick is that existing owners don't want to do this, and they have a lot of political power. So I don't really see this happening, but if it somehow could happen that would be the path to the answer.

ahelwer 7y ago
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "distribution" - there is already enough housing for everybody (see article), it is just not distributed in an equitable way among people who need it. Nothing to do with shipping houses.
- harryh 7y ago
  there is already enough housing for everybody This is not true because you aren't counting the vast number of people who want to relocate to the Bay Area. The article also ignores the fact that you will always have some % of empty homes. People move out and it takes time to find new tenants. People want to remodel. New buildings take time to fill up. People have second homes. Overall vacancy rates in SF and the Bay Area in general are TINY. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jose-san-francisco-lendingtree https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo... The idea that 0% vacancy is achievable (or even desirable) is wrong.
- pcwalton 7y ago
  There obviously isn't enough housing for everybody. How many people do you think want to live in San Francisco (including those displaced by housing prices), but can't, and therefore live out of town, out of state, etc.? The statistic about vacancies is only meaningful if you assume that the only demand for housing in SF comes from the homeless, which is clearly absurd.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    How much extra housing would have to be built to reduce housing costs to the point that all people experiencing homelessness can afford them? Thinking you can build your way out of this housing crisis is the definition of insanity. So long as homes are commodities, people will be homeless and wealthy people will own a multiple of the number of houses that they need. In a society with decommodified housing, some amount of housing will need to be built to keep up with local immigration. That is massively below the amount that would need to be built to try to prod second-order market effects to do what we want.
    - pcwalton 7y ago
      > How much extra housing would have to be built to reduce housing costs to the point that all people experiencing homelessness can afford them? We don't need all people experiencing homelessness to be able to afford market-rate housing. That's what subsidized affordable housing is for. If market rate housing were much cheaper, though, many people who are homeless would be able to afford market-rate housing, and then the scarce affordable housing dollars that we have would be sufficient to cover the rest. > Thinking you can build your way out of this housing crisis is the definition of insanity. No, it's what cities that don't have housing crises like Houston do. Objectively, Houston is doing everything better than San Francisco when it comes to housing. What do they do? Allow a lot more building, with less red tape and restrictive zoning. San Franciscans need to take a long hard look at what cities like Chicago and Dallas are doing when it comes to housing, and have the humility to recognize that their policies have failed and that they must change. I say this as a San Franciscan who's proud of his city in a lot of other ways. > In a society with decommodified housing, some amount of housing will need to be built to keep up with local immigration. That is massively below the amount that would need to be built to try to prod second-order market effects to do what we want. That doesn't make sense to me. Demand is demand; you need a lot of housing no matter what. Unless you try to curb that demand by instituting a hukou system (which a lot of Californians seem to want to do).

by harryh 7y ago

ahelwer 7y ago

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "distribution" - there is already enough housing for everybody (see article), it is just not distributed in an equitable way among people who need it. Nothing to do with shipping houses.

harryh 7y ago
there is already enough housing for everybody This is not true because you aren't counting the vast number of people who want to relocate to the Bay Area. The article also ignores the fact that you will always have some % of empty homes. People move out and it takes time to find new tenants. People want to remodel. New buildings take time to fill up. People have second homes. Overall vacancy rates in SF and the Bay Area in general are TINY. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jose-san-francisco-lendingtree https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo... The idea that 0% vacancy is achievable (or even desirable) is wrong.
pcwalton 7y ago
There obviously isn't enough housing for everybody. How many people do you think want to live in San Francisco (including those displaced by housing prices), but can't, and therefore live out of town, out of state, etc.? The statistic about vacancies is only meaningful if you assume that the only demand for housing in SF comes from the homeless, which is clearly absurd.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  How much extra housing would have to be built to reduce housing costs to the point that all people experiencing homelessness can afford them? Thinking you can build your way out of this housing crisis is the definition of insanity. So long as homes are commodities, people will be homeless and wealthy people will own a multiple of the number of houses that they need. In a society with decommodified housing, some amount of housing will need to be built to keep up with local immigration. That is massively below the amount that would need to be built to try to prod second-order market effects to do what we want.
  - pcwalton 7y ago
    > How much extra housing would have to be built to reduce housing costs to the point that all people experiencing homelessness can afford them? We don't need all people experiencing homelessness to be able to afford market-rate housing. That's what subsidized affordable housing is for. If market rate housing were much cheaper, though, many people who are homeless would be able to afford market-rate housing, and then the scarce affordable housing dollars that we have would be sufficient to cover the rest. > Thinking you can build your way out of this housing crisis is the definition of insanity. No, it's what cities that don't have housing crises like Houston do. Objectively, Houston is doing everything better than San Francisco when it comes to housing. What do they do? Allow a lot more building, with less red tape and restrictive zoning. San Franciscans need to take a long hard look at what cities like Chicago and Dallas are doing when it comes to housing, and have the humility to recognize that their policies have failed and that they must change. I say this as a San Franciscan who's proud of his city in a lot of other ways. > In a society with decommodified housing, some amount of housing will need to be built to keep up with local immigration. That is massively below the amount that would need to be built to try to prod second-order market effects to do what we want. That doesn't make sense to me. Demand is demand; you need a lot of housing no matter what. Unless you try to curb that demand by instituting a hukou system (which a lot of Californians seem to want to do).